Pitogo vs. Suello

A notary public is personally responsible for the correctness of entries in his or her notarial register, and failure to properly record notarial acts constitutes a violation of the Notarial Rules and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting suspension from the practice of law and disqualification from being commissioned as notary public.

Complainant Crescenciano M. Pitogo purchased a motorcycle from EMCOR, Inc., which allegedly failed to cause the registration of the motorcycle under his name. Pitogo filed a Civil Complaint before the Regional Trial Court against EMCOR, Inc. The motorcycle was eventually registered in Pitogo's name based on three documents notarized by respondent Atty. Joselito Troy Suello. The documents were obtained from the Land Transportation Office, Danao City, Cebu, and were relevant to Pitogo's civil case against EMCOR, Inc.

Complainant Crescenciano M. Pitogo purchased a motorcycle from EMCOR, Inc., which allegedly failed to cause the registration of the motorcycle under his name. Pitogo filed a Civil Complaint before the Regional Trial Court against EMCOR, Inc. The motorcycle was eventually registered in Pitogo's name based on three documents notarized by respondent Atty. Joselito Troy Suello: (1) a Deed of Assignment between Maria P. Ponce / Rogelio Ponce and EMCOR, Inc. (Doc. No. 436; Book No. 83; Page No. 88; Series of 2009); (2) a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage between Maria P. Ponce and Mariza G. Ono-on (Doc. No. 437; Page No. 88; Book No. 83; Series of 2009); and (3) a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage between Mariza G. Ono-on and Crescenciano M. Pitogo (Doc. No. 235; Page No. 85; Book No. 83; Series of 2009).

Pitogo obtained a copy of the three documents from the Land Transportation Office, Danao City, Cebu. On August 3, 2009, he went to Suello's office to have them certified. Pitogo claims that when he called Suello the next day to tell him about the importance of these documents to his civil case, Suello "disowned the documents." Suello instead ordered his secretary to give Pitogo a copy of his notarial register. In a letter dated August 7, 2009, Pitogo reiterated to Suello that the documents were important in his civil case pending before the Regional Trial Court and requested Suello to certify the authenticity and veracity of the three documents he obtained from the Land Transportation Office. Pitogo did not receive a reply from Suello.

On September 10, 2009, Pitogo filed his Affidavit-Complaint against Suello before the Cebu Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, alleging discrepancies between the three documents notarized by Suello and Suello's entries in his notarial register. Specifically, Pitogo claims that Suello's notarial register showed that the entries pertain to different documents: Doc. No. 436 was a Deed of Absolute Sale of Mr. Roel D. Rago; Doc. No. 437 was a Deed of Absolute Sale of Mrs. Conchita Pitogo Tautho; and Doc. No. 235 was a Contract to Sell of BF Property Development Corporation.

In his Answer to the Affidavit-Complaint, Suello denied having notarized the three documents obtained from the Land Transportation Office and denied the allegation that he disowned the documents. He admitted that he certified the documents as true copies. In his Position Paper, Suello explained that it was his secretary who certified Pitogo's documents on August 3, 2009. Suello told Pitogo that his secretary was not given such authority. Suello also claimed that Pitogo threatened to file an administrative case against him if he did not issue a certification stating whether the documents were really notarized by him or were fabricated. According to Suello, Pitogo needed the certification that the three documents used to register the motorcycle under his name were fabricated so he could claim 1.7 million in damages for EMCOR, Inc.'s alleged non-registration of his motorcycle.

• Discrepancies in Notarial Register: Pitogo alleged that there were discrepancies between the three documents notarized by Suello and Suello's entries in his notarial register, showing that the entries pertained to different documents and parties.
• Request for Certification: Pitogo requested Suello to certify the authenticity and veracity of the three documents he obtained from the Land Transportation Office to determine if they were duly notarized or merely fabricated, but received no reply.

• Denial of Notarization: Suello denied having notarized the three documents obtained from the Land Transportation Office and denied the allegation that he disowned the documents.
• Blame on Secretary: Suello explained that it was his secretary who certified Pitogo's documents on August 3, 2009, and that his secretary was not given such authority.
• Excessive Penalty: In his Motion for Reconsideration, Suello argued that the sanction imposed was excessive, citing that this was his first infraction in 15 years of practice, that he was not in bad faith, and that there was no actual or potential injury caused to any private party.
• Remorse and Apology: Suello apologized for his oversight and argued that substantial justice had not been done, claiming that his indignation distracted him from the mistaken belief that the complainant's dubious motives would not merit his complaint attention.

• Negligence in Notarial Register: Whether respondent is administratively liable for negligence in keeping and maintaining his notarial register.
• Falsehood in Pleadings: Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by committing a falsehood in the pleadings he submitted.
• Delegation of Notarial Duty: Whether respondent's secretary can be blamed for the erroneous entries in the notarial register.

• Negligence in Notarial Register: Yes. Respondent is administratively liable for his negligence in keeping and maintaining his notarial register, violating Rule VI of the Notarial Rules, which requires recording every notarial act in the notarial register.
• Falsehood in Pleadings: Yes. Respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in dishonest and unlawful conduct, by claiming in his Answer that he certified the documents as true copies and later passing the blame to his secretary in his Position Paper.
• Delegation of Notarial Duty: No. Respondent's secretary cannot be blamed for the erroneous entries in the notarial register because the notarial commission is a license held personally by the notary public and cannot be further delegated.

• Negligence in Notarial Register: The Court found that respondent negligently failed to enter the details of the three documents on his notarial register, casting doubt on the authenticity of complainant's documents and on the credibility of the notarial register and the notarial process. Recording every notarial act in the notarial register is required under Rule VI of the Notarial Rules, which specifies the entries to be recorded at the time of notarization, including the entry number and page number, date and time, type of notarial act, title or description of the instrument, names and addresses of principals, competent evidence of identity, names and addresses of credible witnesses, fee charged, address where notarization was performed, and any other circumstance deemed significant. Failure to properly record entries in the notarial register is also a ground for revocation of notarial commission under Rule XI, Section 1 of the Notarial Rules.

• Falsehood in Pleadings: The Court noted that respondent claimed in his Answer that he certified complainant's documents as true copies, but later, in his Position Paper, he passed the blame to his secretary. This violates the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in dishonest and unlawful conduct. The Court emphasized that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act but is invested with substantial public interest, and notaries must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.

• Delegation of Notarial Duty: The Court held that respondent's secretary cannot be blamed for the erroneous entries in the notarial register because the notarial commission is a license held personally by the notary public and cannot be further delegated. It is the notary public alone who is personally responsible for the correctness of the entries in his or her notarial register. The Court also noted that respondent's apparent remorse was displayed only after a penalty was recommended by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors, and it was not motivated by a realization of a wrong committed on an individual but only by a desire to temper the penalty.

• Notarial Register as Prima Facie Evidence — A notarial register is prima facie evidence of the facts there stated. It has the presumption of regularity, and to contradict the veracity of the entry, evidence must be clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant. The Court applied this doctrine in finding that respondent's negligent failure to enter the details of the three documents cast doubt on the authenticity of complainant's documents and the credibility of the notarial process.

• Personal Responsibility of Notary Public — The notarial commission is a license held personally by the notary public and cannot be further delegated. It is the notary public alone who is personally responsible for the correctness of the entries in his or her notarial register. The Court applied this doctrine in rejecting respondent's attempt to blame his secretary for the erroneous entries.

• Notarization as a Public Interest Function — Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantial public interest, and notarization converts a private document into a public document, making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. Notaries must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties; otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined.

• "A notarial register is prima facie evidence of the facts there stated. It has the presumption of regularity and to contradict the veracity of the entry, evidence must be clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant." — This passage, quoted from Bote v. Judge Eduardo, establishes the evidentiary weight given to notarial registers and underscores the importance of accurate record-keeping by notaries public.

• "Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with such substantial public interest that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity." — This passage articulates the public interest dimension of notarization and the duty of notaries to observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.

• "The notarial commission is a license held personally by the notary public. It cannot be further delegated. It is the notary public alone who is personally responsible for the correctness of the entries in his or her notarial register." — This passage states the core doctrine that a notary public cannot delegate his or her duties and remains personally responsible for the correctness of entries in the notarial register.

• Bote vs. Judge Eduardo, 491 Phil. 198 (2005) — Cited as controlling precedent for the doctrine that a notarial register is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein and that notarization is invested with substantial public interest requiring notaries to observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.

• Agadan, et al. vs. Atty. Kilaan, A.C. No. 9385, November 11, 2013, 709 SCRA 1 — Cited as the controlling precedent for the penalty imposed in this case, where the same violations of Notarial Rules and Code of Professional Responsibility were meted with the penalty of one-year suspension of notarial commission and three-month suspension from the practice of law.

• Rule VI, Section 2, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Requires the notary to record in the notarial register at the time of notarization the entry number and page number, date and time, type of notarial act, title or description of the instrument, names and addresses of principals, competent evidence of identity, names and addresses of credible witnesses, fee charged, address where notarization was performed, and any other circumstance deemed significant. The Court applied this provision in finding respondent negligent for failing to properly record the three documents.

• Rule XI, Section 1, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Provides that the Executive Judge may revoke the commission of, or impose appropriate administrative sanctions upon, any notary public who fails to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial register concerning his notarial acts. The Court applied this provision as a ground for the administrative sanction imposed.

• Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires a lawyer to uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes. The Court found respondent violated this canon by negligently failing to enter the details of the three documents on his notarial register.

• Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits a lawyer from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The Court found respondent violated this rule by committing a falsehood in the pleadings he submitted, claiming he certified the documents as true copies and later passing the blame to his secretary.

• Carpio, J. (Chairperson)
• Velasco, Jr., J. (Designated Acting Member per S.O. No. 1951 dated March 18, 2015)
• Del Castillo, J.
• Mendoza, J.